Some noteworthy news articles:

• NO on Issue 2 – Toledo Blade, 10/28/09
  

  “Regardless of how anyone feels about the treatment of farm animals, Issue 2 is poor public policy, and it should be defeated.

  The Ohio Constitution should never be used to promote the interests of specific individuals, businesses, or industries. The reasonable approach to balancing the needs of Ohio’s farming industry and the concerns of animal-rights groups would have been to follow Michigan’s example and work out a compromise in state law that would protect both farmers and farm animals.”

• Livestock care is key in Issue 2 debate – Columbus Dispatch, 10/25/09
  

  In case there’s any doubt about this being big business, consider Ohio’s 2008 agriculture numbers:

  • 4 million pigs were raised on 4,000 farms. Another 170,000 sows were used for breeding.
  • 27 million hens laid 7.1 billion eggs. There were 57.5 million chickens and 6 million turkeys raised for meat.
  • 1.2 million beef cattle came from 15,000 farms. Another 700,000 calves were marketed for veal.

• Controversial proposal is battle over who regulates agriculture industry – Dayton Daily News, 10/25/09
  

  While the Ohio Constitution authorizes a state board of education, boards typically aren’t prescribed in that document, said Charles Hallinan, a University of Dayton law professor and constitutional scholar.

  “It’s an oddity,” Hallinan said of Issue 2. “It is unusual enough that it would give me pause to include it in the constitution.”

• Issue 2 Spending – Columbus Dispatch, 10/23/09
  

  Backers of state Issue 2, the proposed constitutional amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, gave more than $4 million to that cause.

  “Contributions to Issue 2 are about much more than just supporting a ballot measure,” said Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and treasurer of Ohioans for Livestock Care Political Action Committee.

  “They are really an investment in educating all Ohioans on farmers’ commitment to excellent animal care and to providing safe, affordable, locally grown food for our consumers.”

  Issue 2 supporters said about $3 million of the total came from Ohio family farmers and groups representing farm organizations.

  Records show about $1.2 million came via more than 100 donations from out-of-state organizations, ranging from the Delaware Farm Bureau to the Arizona Pork Council to the Texas Turkey Federation to the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council. Eli Lily Co. of Indianapolis added $25,000.

  The drive to pass state Issue 2 was led by a dozen six-figure donations. The Ohio Farm Bureau chipped in about $535,000 overall, although the largest single contribution, $200,000, came from United Egg Producers in Alpharetta, Ga.

• Justice calls State Issue 2 misuse of constitution – Columbus Dispatch, 10/20/09
  

  O’Connor said the state constitution is a “much bigger document” that should not be amended to include policy decisions, such as livestock care, that are best left to lawmakers.

  O’Connor, who plans to run for chief justice next year, said backers of Issue 2 understand that once something is added to the constitution, it will take “an arm and a leg” to overturn it, the paper reported.

The most recent list of groups who officially oppose Issue 2 (I’m sure I’m missing some):

Finally, I’d like to draw attention to an analysis of contributions to the Ohioans for Livestock Care PAC conducted by Ohio ACT.

They’ve published the findings as a PDF, but for greater accessibility I’m posting the info here as well. The numbers clearly show what Issue 2 opponents have been saying all along, Issue 2 is NOT about protecting small farms, this is about protecting the abusive and immoral practices of FACTORY farms.

Ohio ACT Analysis of Contributions and In-Kind Donations to Ohioans for Livestock Care PAC

Large Contributors/Donors ($20,000 or More) Represent Two-Thirds of the Contributions to Ohioans for Livestock Care (Pro-Issue 2):
Fifty donors, all large institutions, that gave $20,000 or more to the Ohioans for Livestock Care PAC were 2 percent of the contributors but two-thirds (66 percent) of the financing. More than one thousand donors (1,046 contributors) donated less than $100, but these small donors made up only 1 percent of the PAC’s contributions.

Dozen Largest Contributions/In-Kind Donations Made Up More than One Third of Contributions:
The twelve largest contributors (all agribusiness interests) contributed at least $100,000 gave a total of $1.4 million, 35 percent of all funds contributed to Ohioans for Livestock Care. The statewide Ohio Farm Bureau Federation gave $505,186 (in four separate donations) that constituted 12 percent of the funding for the PAC. Three out-of- state interests contributed a total of $413,000, or 10 percent of all contributions to the PAC (United Egg Producers (Georgia), National Pork Producers Council (Iowa), and Pioneer Hi-Bred (Iowa-based seed and agrochemical firm).

Non-Individual Contributors Provided Nearly All (94 Percent) of the Financing:
About half the contributors (49 percent) were “non-individual” contributors, but they contributed $.3.8 million (94 percent) to the PAC. These non-individual donors were primarily agribusiness trade associations, livestock operations, agricultural service companies and farms.

Farm Bureau Chapters and Livestock Operations and Associations Among Largest Donors:
State and local Farm Bureau chapters made 451 contributions totaling $995,719 to the pro-Issue 2 PAC – 18 percent of the contributors and 25 percent of the financing. This includes 13 non-Ohio-based Farm Bureau chapters that gave $60,000. Hog trade associations and operations contributed $624,106 (15 percent); egg trade associations and operations contributed $477,298 (12 percent); poultry associations and operations contributed $271,695 (7 percent). Beef, dairy and other livestock interest contributed $257,944 (6 percent) combined.

Contributors from Outside Ohio Provided More than One Fourth Contributions:
More than one hundred (106) out of state contributors donated $1,196,080 to Ohioans for Livestock Care, only 4 percent of the contributors but 30 percent of the financing. Ten Iowa contributors gave $498,300 (12 percent), 3 Georgia contributors gave $211,000 (5 percent), 3 Minnesota contributors gave $115,000 (3 percent), 26 Indiana donors gave $97,075 (2 percent), 3 Kentucky contributors gave $58,000 (1 percent), 5 Missouri donors gave $56,000 (1 percent), and 3 North Carolina contributors gave $50,000 (1 percent).

Methodology: Ohio ACT examined the Coalition for Livestock Care PAC contributions and in kind donation data that was released October 22nd and coded the non-individual contributors that gave $5,000 or more based on agricultural sector. Trade associations and companies that provided a livestock-specific service (pork packing, poultry packaging or cage manufacturing, or hog business consulting software, for example) was coded with the appropriate livestock industry. Livestock services that were not livestock type specific (veterinary services, cattle genetics) were coded as agricultural services). Feed and seed elevators that provide a range of agricultural services but appear to be primarily elevators are coded as feed/grain/oilseed.

Of course, this is not an all-inclusive update, there is so much being said about this issue I can’t possibly cover it all. PLEASE do your research, and don’t believe the feel-good commercials the Farm Bureau is putting out, they’re anything but honest.

If you’re in Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati: Ohio ACT really needs volunteers to help with phonebanking and passing out door hangers.

Spread the word: VOTE NO ON ISSUE 2!

(Can’t see the video? Click here.)

I’ve been meaning to write about Issue 2, a sneaky little campaign (backed by factory farms and Big Ag) that would create the “Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.” Since this op-ed letter I just wrote to Outlook News pretty much summarizes where I stand, I’ll go ahead and copy it here.

For more information on this issue, please check out OhioACT.org (Ohioans Against Constitutional Takeover) and the Facebook group I’ve created: Ohioans Against Issue 2. On both sites you can download flyers, view recent news articles about the issue, and more.

To: hayes@outlookmedia.com, mdaniels@outlookmedia.com
Subject: Issue 2 endorsement

Dear Mr. Daniels,

I was highly disappointed to find an endorsement of Issue 2 in the latest issue of Outlook. Disappointed for many reasons.

The first reason is the obvious lack of research on the issue. Did you take your summary of the issue straight off the Farm Bureau’s website? Did you read ANY opposing arguments? Did you look at the list of groups who oppose it? This list includes the Capital Area Humane Society, Ohio League of Women Voters, Organic Consumers Association, Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Farmers Union, Food & Water Watch… the list goes on.

Do you know how quickly the ballot measure was pushed through the Ohio legislature, passing through the House and Senate in just 6 days? Talk about suspicious. Issue 2 came about as a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of dealing with the Humane Society’s potential focus on expanding animal welfare laws in the state of Ohio. Rather than leave the decision up to voters who may decide farm animals deserve better treatment (as was recently the case in Michigan and California), the Farm Bureau decided to take matters into their own hands and shrug off the democratic process completely, saying they will regulate themselves. The fox wants to guard the henhouse, literally.

Issue 2 would amend the Ohio Constitution, an action that should NEVER be taken lightly.  Creating a Livestock Care Standards Board takes away power from the voters, as all future animal-welfare decisions would be decided upon and handed down by this unelected 13-member group. Did Outlook investigate the would-be members of this board? To put it simply: they’re not looking out for animals or food safety, they’re pawns for Big Agribusiness. Not to mention the cost of creating this new board. Can Ohio really afford this right now? Expanding government always means expanding the budget.

Also worth mentioning is the effect it will have on Ohio’s small farmers, who would have even more regulation to deal with if Issue 2 passes. That does not mean safer food, historically this has resulted in increased costs for small farmers who end up going out of business, then factory farms and Big Ag gladly take over. Factory farms certainly do not provide safer food, and absolutely do not provide better care for animals.

This is not “Ohioans taking care of Ohioans” — this is Big Agribusiness taking care of themselves. I can’t believe Outlook News fell victim to the Farm Bureau’s campaign. You’ve done a disservice to your readers by taking the lazy road to arrive at your endorsement decision, and it will be Ohio’s small farms and animals that suffer.

It’s convenient that Outlook is now a monthly publication, since even if this letter made it to print, it would be too late for anyone to see. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to speak out against this ignorant endorsement.

This is my first year making voting decisions as a libertarian. Turns out, it makes voting even easier — either it follows the Constitution and free-market principles or it doesn’t.

Here’s where I currently stand on the 2008 Ohio ballot issues, along with links to the official ballot language (PDFs):

• Issue 1, earlier filing deadlines for statewide ballot issues:

  Strongly Against.

  The Libertarian Argument: Citizen-initiated ballot issue rules are hard enough, why make it even harder? Thinking about the upcoming state income-tax removal proposal soon to be worked on by the Ohio Freedom Alliance and Libertarian Party of Ohio, why would we want to make our deadline for signatures even sooner?

• Issue 2, authorize the State to issue bonds to continue the Clean Ohio program for environmental revitalization and conservation:

  Against.

  From the SOS website, here’s an argument against it:

  Issue #2 Would Authorize the Government to Spend More in Bond Money. The economy is in bad condition. When times are hard, this is when we must tighten our belts and spend only what is necessary and only what we can cover with incoming revenues. Issue #2 authorizes the government to take out more debts to pay for environmental revitalization and conservation. While this may be worthwhile, the State of Ohio should not be going into further debt.

  Passing Issue #2 Means Taxpayers Will Have to Pay Back These Bonds. Issue #2 authorizes $400 Million Dollars in debt to be used for conservation purposes. You and your children will have to pay this money back. This money could be retained by taxpayers for their own purposes or used for other plans and directly helping people in need.

  The Libertarian Argument: Look— I love our parks and trees, really I do. But if Ohioans are sincerely concerned for the environment, they can donate money to their preferred non-profit environmental organization instead.

• Issue 3, amend the constitution to protect private property rights in ground water, lakes and other watercourses:

  Against.

  Again, from the SOS website, here’s the argument against it:

  Issue #3 is an unnecessary addition to the Ohio Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio already determined that private property owners have rights to the ground water underlying their land and to the watercourse flowing on and through their land.

  Issue #3 makes changes to the Constitution so specific that they mention legal doctrines that are not contained in the Constitution. What if those legal doctrines change by court rulings? Parts of our Constitution would no longer be relevant. That is not appropriate for our Constitution, which is supposed to be the voice of the People.

  Issue #3 does not give an accurate picture of a private property owner’s rights. Property owners do not actually own the water beneath their land. They have a right to a reasonable use of that water, but the state always has the power to regulate how it is used and take it for just compensation. Issue #3 gives private property owners the false sense of security that their land cannot be taken away at a later date.

  The Libertarian Argument: If we already have these private property protections through the Ohio Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, what is the purpose of this issue? I will always opt to NOT grant more power to the State, unless I am absolutely convinced there is no ulterior motive.

• Issue 4, requiring paid sick leave for employees in Ohio:

  N/A

  This issue was withdrawn by petitioners’ committee on Sept. 4th.

• Issue 5, making changes to check cashing lending, sometimes known as “Payday Lending,” fees, interest rates and practices:

  Against.

  The Libertarian Argument: It’s an infringement on the free market. While I personally would never use a payday lending service, if other people want to use this consumer option, it’s their choice, not the State. I do NOT want the State to be regulating interest rates, ever.

• Issue 6, casino near Wilmington in Southwest Ohio and distribute to all Ohio counties a tax on the casino:

  Against.

  The Libertarian Argument: While I have no problem with people gambling if they choose to, this amendment would grant a one-casino monopoly in the state. If we’re going to bring in casinos, we should do it in a free market way.

One last IMPORTANT note about voting in Ohio: The most secure way to vote is by ABSENTEE BALLOT, making sure to deliver it IN PERSON to the Board of Elections office.

This means your vote is recorded ON PAPER, not Diebold (Optiscan) machines!

Some people go so far as to make copies of their ballot and get it notarized — that’s all up to you.

This advice comes to me direct from a friend who works with the Citizens Alliance For Secure Elections, a group that is highly involved in the investigations of Ohio voter fraud in the 2004 Presidential election. For more information on why you should be terrified of Diebold machines, check out this Scientific American article.

Advantages of this suggested voting method:

• If lines are long or voting machines have problems, voting could take a long time and some people may choose to leave the line without voting.
• Weather could be a problem in November, voters often must wait outdoors.
• If your ID is not accepted, you have to cast a provisional ballot which might be rejected.
• Due to HB3 and a 60-day mailing, you may be required to vote provisionally regardless of having correct address, precinct, proper ID and proper voter registration.
• If your fill out a provisional ballot at the wrong precinct (even at the right polling place), your ballot will definitely be rejected.
• Ballot will not get lost or delayed in the mail

Keep in mind it’s only the beginning of October, and if the previous years are any indication, the voting rules will inevitably change time and time again, making voters even more confused.

In my opinion, it’s best to be safe and follow these four steps:

1. Make sure your registration is current.
2. Request an absentee ballot.
3. Deliver it in person (on or before Election Day.)
4. Know that your vote is as secure as it can possibly be in this ridiculous and phony “democracy” we live in.